Supplemental Rules For Certain Admiralty And Maritime Claims

71 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. $38
  816 F.2d 1538· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the government failed to properly execute process and that its forfeiture complaint lacked the requisite factual particularity, requiring dismissal.
• United States v. Pappas
  613 F.2d 324· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-28 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the interpretation of 21 U.S.C. § 881(b) by the majority was incorrect, and that the statute allows for warrantless seizures under certain conditions.
• The Merchs. Nat'l Bank OF Mobile v. The Dredge Gen. G. L. Gillespie
  663 F.2d 1338· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-18 ·cited 43×
  The dissent argues that Rule C's procedure for prejudgment seizure of a vessel, authorized solely by the clerk based on ex parte allegations, violates due process requirements established by the Supreme Court.
• United States v. $39
  801 F.2d 1210· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-17 ·cited 39×
  Civil forfeiture complaints under 21 U.S.C. § 881 must comply with Supplemental Rule E(2)(a), requiring specific factual allegations to support an inference of forfeiture, not just notice pleading.
• Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. The Vessel BAY Ridge
  703 F.2d 381· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-04 ·cited 36×
  The exoneration of the stipulation for value, which stood in place of the vessel, deprived the court of jurisdiction, rendering the appeal moot.
• United States v. Beechcraft Queen Airplane Serial No. LD-24
  789 F.2d 627· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-29 ·cited 33×
• In re the Complaint of Keys JET SKI, Inc. v. Kays
  893 F.2d 1225· Fed. Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 32×
  The Limitation of Liability Act applies to pleasure craft, including jet skis, and the district court erred in holding otherwise.
• United States v. TAX LOT 1500
  861 F.2d 232· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 31×
  The Eighth Amendment's proportionality requirement does not apply to civil forfeiture actions, and judicial restraint to limit forfeiture to the portion of property used for cultivation is not warranted when the owner knowingly used their property for illegal activity.
• Amstar Corp. (a v. S/S Alexandros T.
  664 F.2d 904· 4th Cir.· 1981-11-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that Rule C of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims is constitutional as applied to in rem proceedings, and that the district court properly assessed damages for cargo loss.
• United States v. 1982 Yukon DELTA Houseboat
  774 F.2d 1432· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the government had established probable cause for the forfeiture of the houseboats and that the district court erred in denying claimants the opportunity to file a late verified claim for the condominium.
• United States v. Real Prop. & Residence AT 3097 S.W. 111TH Ave.
  921 F.2d 1551· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-30 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the entire property used to facilitate a drug transaction is subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), and the complaint met the particularity requirements.
• United States v. Certain Real Est. Prop. Located AT 4880 S.E. Dixie Hwy.
  838 F.2d 1558· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-11 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court erred in awarding attorney's fees under the EAJA based on the government's reliance on statutory procedures and the manner of seizure, and that the failure to allege probable cause in a forfeiture complaint, while grounds for dismissal, does
• United States v. ONE 1985 Cadillac Seville
  866 F.2d 1142· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-31 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a prior state court's in rem jurisdiction over currency prohibits a federal court from exercising concurrent jurisdiction, but affirmed the forfeiture of an automobile as the state court had no jurisdiction over it. The court also held the claimant lacked stan
• United States v. ONE 1978 Piper Navajo PA-31
  748 F.2d 316· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to set aside a default judgment because the claimant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for the delay in filing and did not present a meritorious defense.
• Md. Tuna Corp. v. The MS Benares
  429 F.2d 307· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-02 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the dismissal of the libel and civil action was erroneous because it prematurely invalidated the maritime attachment and garnishment proceeding, and that the relationship between the Japanese parent and New York subsidiary warranted further investigation for j
• United States v. 1982 Sanger 24' Spectra Boat
  738 F.2d 1043· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in striking the claimants' answers and claims without notice, and that the claimants should be permitted to amend their claims to allege a property interest sufficient for standing.
• Trinidad Foundry & Fabricating, Ltd. v. M/V K.A.S. Camilla
  966 F.2d 613· 11th Cir.· 1992-07-15 ·cited 18×
  Trinidad Foundry sought to enforce a maritime lien against a Norwegian vessel for unpaid repairs performed in Trinidad, but the court held that an English statutory right in rem does not constitute a maritime lien under Rule C of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime
• United States v. AN Undetermined Quantity OF AN Article OF Drug Labeled AS Benylin Cough Syrup
  583 F.2d 942· 7th Cir.· 1978-09-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vacate the default judgment, as Parke, Davis's conduct was sufficiently culpable.
• Schiffahartsgesellschaft Leonhardt & Co. v. A. Bottacchi S.A. DE Navegacion
  773 F.2d 1528· 11th Cir.· 1985-10-01 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the maritime attachment procedures under Rule B(1) are derived from the court's inherent admiralty powers, not exclusively from the rule itself, thus avoiding a constitutional challenge to the rule.
• United States v. B & M Used Cars
  860 F.2d 121· 4th Cir.· 1988-10-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the government's position in the forfeiture action was substantially justified, reversing the award of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
• United States v. ONE Parcel OF Real Prop.
  921 F.2d 370· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-20 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a civil forfeiture complaint need only allege facts sufficient to support a reasonable belief that the government can demonstrate probable cause that the property is traceable to illegal drug proceeds, not that the property is definitively tainted.
• United States v. SIX Hundred Thirty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred & Fifty-Eight Dollars ($639
  955 F.2d 712· D.C. Cir.· 1992-02-07 ·cited 12×
  The court did not explicitly state a holding as this is a concurring opinion. The majority opinion, which this concurrence partially disagrees with, likely addressed the inevitable discovery exception.
• United States v. ONE Dairy Farm
  918 F.2d 310· 1st Cir.· 1990-11-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that appellants lacked standing to contest the forfeiture because they failed to file a timely claim or answer as required by Supplemental Rule C(6), and the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing their claims.
• United States v. ONE Urban LOT Located AT 1 St. A-1
  885 F.2d 994· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a timely filed verified answer containing all required information can satisfy the standing requirement normally fulfilled by a claim in an in rem forfeiture proceeding, and that the district court abused its discretion by striking such an answer and entering
• United States v. United States Currency Totalling $3
  826 F.2d 785· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in entering a default judgment for failure to comply with the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, but affirmed without prejudice to the claimants filing a Rule 60(b) motion in the district court.
• United States v. ONE Parcel OF Real Prop. With Bldgs.
  767 F.2d 1495· 11th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the order denying the motion to quash the warrant of arrest was not an appealable final decision, and thus dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
• In re the Complaint of Bowoon Sangsa Co., Ltd. v. Micronesian Indus. Corp.
  720 F.2d 595· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-25 ·cited 12×
  The Palauan High Court, as a court of a foreign country, is not subject to restraining orders issued by United States District Courts in limitation proceedings.
• United States v. Contents OF Accounts NOS. 3034504504 & 144-07143 AT Merrill
  971 F.2d 974· 3d Cir.· 1992-07-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court had venue under 18 U.S.C. § 981(h) but lacked in rem jurisdiction because the res was located outside the district and no federal statute authorized nationwide service of process. The court also held Friko's motion for reargument was timely
• United States v. Certain Real Est. Prop. Located at 4880 S.E. Dixie Hwy.
  612 F. Supp. 1492· S.D. Fla.· 1985-07-03 ·cited 11×
  The Constitution forbids the Attorney General from seizing real property under 21 U.S.C. § 881(b) without prior judicial review, absent exigent circumstances.
• United States v. Lots 12
  869 F.2d 942· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that summary judgment against the wife's innocent owner claim was improper because the government failed to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding her knowledge or consent.
• United States v. Various Articles OF Obscene Merchandise
  600 F.2d 394· 2d Cir.· 1979-05-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a default judgment cannot be entered against seized materials without a judicial determination of obscenity, and that the district court erred in considering the context of private viewing when applying the 'patently offensive' prong of the Miller obscenity te
• United States v. Kaiyo Maru NO. 53
  699 F.2d 989· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-22 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Fishery Conservation and Management Act authorizes warrantless searches and seizures of fishing vessels, and that such actions do not violate the Fourth Amendment due to the pervasively regulated nature of the industry and practical difficulties. The court
• Captain Manuel Salazar & the Crew of the Vessel "Atlantic SUN" & Salem Port Auth. v. The "Atlantic SUN
  881 F.2d 73· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the shipowner failed to demonstrate a due process violation regarding a post-arrest hearing and waived any right to release the vessel on bond by their actions and delays.
• In re Application for Warrant TO Seize ONE 1988 Chevrolet Monte Carlo & one 1987 Chevrolet Camaro. Appeal of United States
  861 F.2d 307· 1st Cir.· 1988-11-14 ·cited 8×
  A district court can issue warrants for civil forfeiture seizures upon a showing of probable cause, even without a filed complaint in rem, exigent circumstances, or a prior judgment.
• United States v. The Proceeds OF Sale OF 3
  857 F.2d 46· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment, as the appellant's reliance on local counsel's erroneous advice did not constitute excusable neglect.
• Durden v. Exxon Corp.
  803 F.2d 845· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Jones Act claim was properly dismissed due to a valid release, and that the remaining admiralty claims were correctly decided by the judge without a jury because the plaintiff elected admiralty jurisdiction.
• United States v. ALL Assets OF Statewide Auto Parts, Inc.
  971 F.2d 896· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-03 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the seizure warrant was validly issued ex parte, and the seizure did not violate defendants' due process rights, as extraordinary circumstances justified the pre-hearing seizure.
• United States v. One (1) 1979 Mercedes 450SE Vehicle Id No. 116032-12-081839 License No. MKS 706
  651 F. Supp. 351· S.D. Fla.· 1987-01-12 ·cited 7×
  The court granted claimant's motion for an extension of time to file a claim and denied the government's motion to strike the answer, despite the late filing and attorney negligence.
• United States v. Lily Borromeo
  945 F.2d 750· 4th Cir.· 1991-09-17 ·cited 6×
  The court agrees with the result that there was excusable neglect, but writes separately to clarify the proper analysis.
• In re Ramu Corp. v. 6600 N. Mesa
  903 F.2d 312· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred by granting a stay of civil forfeiture proceedings without making express findings required by 21 U.S.C. § 881(i) and without considering alternative measures.
• Coast Engine & Equip. Corp. v. SEA Harvester
  641 F.2d 723· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-06 ·cited 6×
  The Marshal's commission in an in rem admiralty foreclosure action is computed under 28 U.S.C. § 1921, not state law, because admiralty proceedings are exclusively federal and satisfy the federal statute exception in Rule 69(a).
• United States v. ONE Parcel OF Prop. Located AT RR 2
  959 F.2d 101· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-17 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the claimants waived their Bill of Attainder argument by failing to raise it in the district court, and the son lacked standing to contest the forfeiture. The court affirmed the forfeiture, finding no abuse of discretion in striking the claims.
• United States v. ONE 1987 BMW 325
  985 F.2d 655· 1st Cir.· 1993-02-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's order striking the appellant's claim for failure to answer interrogatories was premature because it did not follow the two-tiered framework of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, which requires a motion to compel discovery before sanctions
• United States v. Four Parcels OF Real Prop. IN Greene & Tuscaloosa Cntys. IN the State OF Ala.
  893 F.2d 1245· 11th Cir.· 1990-02-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government failed to establish probable cause for forfeiture, and the claimant presented sufficient evidence of legitimate ownership, entitling him to summary judgment.
• Mercado v. The U.S. Customs Serv.
  873 F.2d 641· 2d Cir.· 1989-05-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a claimant must demonstrate actual possession with indicia of reliability, not just a conclusory claim, to have standing in a forfeiture proceeding, and that an attorney's affidavit on information and belief is insufficient to meet procedural requirements.
• S.S. Bethflor v. Thomas
  364 F.2d 634· 5th Cir.· 1966-08-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the libelant to dismiss the admiralty cause without prejudice, despite the plaintiff's apparent forum-shopping intentions.
• Overstreet v. The Water Vessel "Norkong
  706 F.2d 641· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-06 ·cited 3×
  A wife seeking to intervene in a seaman's personal injury suit to assert a loss of consortium claim against the surety bond posted to release the vessel cannot do so, as the bond only covers the original claim.
• Caribbean Yacht Works, Ltd. v. M/V "Neenah Z
  410 F. Supp. 2d 1261· S.D. Fla.· 2005-08-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a Rule C in rem action can be converted to a Rule B in personam action if there is no prejudice to the other side, and that the plaintiff exercised due diligence in attempting to locate the defendant for Rule B attachment.
• City OF Fort Madison v. Emerald Lady
  990 F.2d 1086· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's decisions on maritime liens and bond adequacy were not final determinations of the parties' rights and liabilities as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3).
• United States v. Approximately TWO Thousand
  988 F.2d 1281· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that "process has been executed" under Supplemental Rule C(6) requires both the execution of a warrant for arrest in rem upon the property and the giving of adequate notice to potential claimants; the mere personal service of notice on the owner is insufficient if